Originally Posted by Flaneur Wizard69
, let's see if I can contiue to do this within topic, as you did above for the most part.
I think you are right that the valuation is now reasonable for most because no one can imagine where 2x or 4x growth is going to come from. Meanwhile Andy's three articles so far are trying to show how short-sighted the general view is.
Short-sighted maybe but uncharted territory for sure. How does a company like Apple double in size in let's say five years. Small companies do so all the time with varied degrees of success but the record is pretty clean with respect to companies Apples size. So you can see there is reasonable concern.
The global view, not the short view, is the Tim Cook and the legacy Steve Jobs view. They are just getting started. There is China and the chunk of the rest of the world yet to sell to. It is going to be big, very big, and if I had the spare change I'd be buying as much AAPL as I could now.
There is also a rough 50-50 chance that we will be at war with China in five years. If not war substantially cooled relations due to China seizing land in Asia. Either way this will have a dramatic impact on Apple. Even if this doesn't come to pass we are already seeing trade relations going to hell.
The short-sighted are the problem, and it is a disease peculiar to selfish, left-brained, fearful, reactionary, privileged people. The big global thinkers use their right brains and their empathic capabilities to imagine the future. In the case of Steve Jobs, he saw changing the world by putting desirable technology in everybody's pocket as the best way to build a company that could deserve to dominate the market in the biggest industry there is, communications.
Well I think it is more than just putting things in people's pockets. You need to take out the green stuff to have a successful company.
Still the question remains, how long can Apple keep the dramatic growth going? They can grow I have no doubt there but at the rate seen in the last couple of years? It isn't just growing either they need to maintain the same margins to remain desirable. They may do it but again they do so in uncharted waters. The rational side of name says to be careful with my expectations.
And this was a guy who could never say "et cetera," but always said "ek cetera." So you're right, good language skills don't equate with intelligence exactly. But I would never trust anyone who would say, "I don't do nuance." Obama does nuance without talking about it,
I see "nuance" as a firm of lying or dishonesty. In that regard you are right Obama is a very dishonest president. His attacks on civil liberties through the department of justice, backing people like Holder and his general disregard for human rights is appalling. But yet he is nuanced enough to make it look pretty. I really don't have any trust or respect for anybody that can't be honest.
and the reason he met with Jobs was to swap ideas with a person who could meet him on a strategic, global level.
You have to accept that Obama is an idiot but one that realizes he needs to grow favor with the business world to succeed. In any event I'm left thinking that Jobs impression of Obama after the meeting was pretty negative. Jobs wasn't the type of guy looking for excuses and certainly didn't want to hear them from the commander in chief.
Would his predecessor have ever considered meeting with Steve Jobs?
Good question but on the other hand if Jobs was a dyed in the wool democrate would he of bothered? I'm not so sure Jobs was that much of a democrate anyways as his business views certainly didn't lean that way. Jobs sounded more like a Libertarian than anything. I don't think Jobs really liked the political climate and tended to avoid it business wise. Apple only recently started engaging people in Washington to cover their interests there.
Actually I think this brings back to business and politics, get to a certain size and you can't avoid politics as a business. Business impacts politics and politics impacts business, there is no way around that. So let's say that Apple becomes a business that is 1.5 times as large as any other business in let's say two years. Right now Apple is sort of under the radar as far as big businesses go, but if they are 1.5x bigger than everybody else they become a target. Basically a target for every Tom Dick and Harry that wants a piece of the action or feels abused. This means exposure to politically motivated attacks the likes of which Apple has not seen to date. Groups like Occupy Wall Street will be trying to bend Apple over every way they can if their little party is allowed to continue.
In the end I just see all sorts of factors impacting Apples share price in the future. Some may never come to pass but Apple will have new struggles and issues of scale that will make appreciation in share price more difficult. In the end a conservative view on share price is wise.